The Mastro report appeared on Thursday morning, March 27. That evening, Maddow did this:

*At length, she ranted about the way Team Mastro had failed to release any supporting documents. (“They released none of the documentation they said they looked at,” she complained. “They released none of these text messages, none of the e-mails they said they saw, no documents of any kind.”)

Oops! In fact, more than 4000 pages of emails, text messages and other documents had been released along with the report.

*In an extended rant, she gave the impression that the Mastro report mentions the relationship between Bridget Kelly and Bill Stepien three times in just the first 17 pages. (“They keep bringing it up over and over and over again,” she complained.)

In fact, the relationship is mentioned three times in the entire report; those three citations are spread out over more than a hundred pages. Maddow made at least two misstatements of fact, thus creating a vastly different impression.

*She insisted that the Mastro report never even tried to explain the relevance of the relationship. (“The relevance of this is never explained,” she complained. “It’s just supposed to be self-evident, I guess, and they keep bringing it up over and over and over again.”)

In fact, the report offers two explanations for the relevance of the relationship. (At one point, Maddow dropped the second part of a sentence she was quoting, the part of the sentence which explains the relevance.)

It’s hard to look at work like this without wondering about Maddow’s basic honesty. In our view, the cable star offers work like this on a fairly regular basis.

That said, did you really think that was all she did wrong as she ranted, and misled viewers, on last Thursday’s program?

Sorry! Before her opening segment was done, Maddow did something even worse. In a slippery and dishonest way, she added two more names to her long list of the names of the guilty of the earth.
To watch that first segment, click this.

Maddow has played the role of hanging judge ever since this story broke. Her desire to charge and convict The Others seems to know few bounds.

How many people have been falsely convicted? Let’s recall some cases:

Chip Michaels: On one occasion, Maddow misrepresented statements by two different sources to make it seem like Officer Chip Michaels tried to make the traffic jams worse on the first day of the lane closings. In a more serious world, she would have been removed from the air right then.

Paul Nunziato: On another occasion, Maddow told the world that Paul Nunziato, the head of the Port Authority police union, had been fired, apparently because of misconduct related to the lane closings.

Oops! That simply wasn’t true; Nunziato hadn’t been fired. One week later, Maddow revised her claim, saying that Nunziato had stepped down from his post. That wasn’t true either.

Somebody named Nicole: On February 12, Maddow set her sights on the woman named “Nicole” who was mentioned in a text message from David Wildstein. Here’s how that hanging occurred:

Last November, Bill Baroni testified to the New Jersey legislature about the lane closings. In a text message, Wildstein told Baroni that he had “texted Bridget and Nicole, and they were very happy” with the way his testimony went.

Maddow told us all about “Nicole,” including her maiden name and the full name of her husband. Maddow assumed that Baroni was lying that day. Off and on in her presentation, Maddow seemed to assume, then not to assume, that this “Nicole” must have known it.

Uh-oh! As it turned out, Maddow didn’t know, and still doesn’t know, if she had the right “Nicole!” As it turned out, the person Maddow mugged that night probably isn’t the Nicole to whom Wildstein referred in that text.

Four weeks later, Maddow mentioned this minor problem in passing.

Let’s not try to list all the people Maddow has maligned in such ways. If we did, attorney Philip Kwon would be another example.

Maddow has made a pile of embarrassing errors as she has conducted her witch trials. That said, her greatest scam involves something she hasn’t told viewers.

This problem—the problem of what she’s withholding—came back into play last Thursday, March 27.

What has Maddow withheld from her viewers? She has never told her viewers about the way Wildstein went through the motions of conducting a traffic study or test last August and September.

Was the whole traffic study a hoax? On a journalistic basis, we don’t think that has been proven yet. (Maddow read a new email on Monday night which may create additional doubt, although of course she didn’t say so.)

Was the whole traffic study a hoax? We don’t think that has been proven. But if we assume the whole thing was a hoax, it remains true that Wildstein went through the motions of conducting a study both before and during the lane closings.

Speaking under oath in December, two bridge officials testified that they had believed that he was conducting some sort of traffic study. People in the Christie administration may have believed that too.

What follows is amazing: Despite the many hours Maddow has devoted to this topic, she has never explained these basic facts to her badly misused viewers.

This omission has freed her to say and suggest that Baroni was lying in his testimony, and to say and suggest that everyone in the Christie administration surely must have known that.

This brings us back to last Thursday night’s show, when Maddow added several names to her list of the guilty of the earth. You can see her doing this in the excerpt we’ve posted below.

Regina Egea and Nicole Crifo: In this part of her opening segment, Maddow was listing new information from the Mastro report. She names the people who edited Baroni’s opening statement when he testified about the lane closings.

Note this skillful Torquemada’s use of the word “admit:”

MADDOW (3/27/14): Also, new information, we also know whose handwriting this is.

This is a draft of that cover-up testimony that was delivered to the legislature back in November. We had previously seen this draft and could tell that it was all marked up by someone. But we didn’t know whose handwritten notations these were, editing that testimony, obviously trying to shine it up a little bit.

We now know whose handwriting that is. We know that is the handwriting of the governor’s current chief of staff, Regina Egea, and also a staffer named Nicole Crifo. She was also another senior staffer in the governor’s office at the time.

In today’s report from the governor’s lawyers, footnote 549 helpfully notes that those two staffers are the two senior Chris Christie staffers who admit that those are their handwritten comments on the testimony about the cover story. So they helped edit it. We now know that.

We also learned that the governor’s chief counsel, Charlie McKenna, also advised Bill Baroni on that cover-up testimony. And we also learned it was Governor Christie’s personal direction that Bill Baroni should give that testimony, that he should appear before the legislature and give that testimony which, again, was a fake cover story.

Those five paragraphs help us see the way propagandists work. Also, Torquemadas.

With great regularity, Maddow has always referred to Baroni’s testimony as “cover-up testimony,” “a fake cover story.” These descriptions imply that Baroni knew he was saying things which were false or misleading, a proposition Maddow hasn’t demonstrated.

Did Baroni know or believe that Wildstein’s “traffic study” was a hoax? Did he believe he was testifying falsely? That’s possible, but it hasn’t been proven.

That said, there’s absolutely zero evidence that Egea and Crifo knew or believed that Baroni’s opening statement was false. There is no evidence that they believed that Wildstein conducted a hoax.

Despite this minor problem, Maddow told the world that Egea and Crifo have now “admitted” that they helped edit the “fake cover story.” In this way, Maddow added their names, and that of McKenna, to her very long list of the guilty of the earth.

We’ve rarely seen anyone work so hard, or so dishonestly, to convict so many people of so many unproven crimes.

Maddow should have been sent for counseling long ago. She should have received journalistic counseling, and counseling for her soul.

Let’s review:

There is no evidence—none at all—showing that Michaels tried to make the Fort Lee traffic jams worse.

Nunziato didn’t get fired. He didn’t step down from his post.

Maddow still doesn’t know which “Nicole” Wildstein was citing in that text message. But so what? Three months ago, she found a staffer named Nicole and spread her vitals around.

There is no evidence that attorney Philip Kwon knew or believed that Wildstein conducted a hoax.

Last Thursday, Maddow added new names to her list. There is no evidence that Egea and Crifo believed they were editing false testimony. But Maddow announced, last Thursday night, that they have “admitted” their crime.

We still haven’t listed all the garbage Maddow spewed about last Thursday. On Monday, we’ll do one more post on this subject.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s say this:

Rachel Maddow should have been pulled off the air a long time ago. Her work on the Fort Lee matter has been astounding, horrendous.

In American celebrity culture, major wealth and massive fame have ruined a great many people. In our view, Maddow has been working hard to add her own name to that list.

I agree with hardindr. And I think this post also shows why Somerby has been targeting Maddow so often. Seeing this list all together like this makes me wonder how she can still be on the air. It is not OK to tar people without evidence for partisan political purposes, while supposedly reporting a news story. I am appalled by her behavior.

There's so much to go into, but let's look at one. Nunziato was reported to be "stepping aside from day-to-day operations." It's ridiculous to say someone who does commentary is saying something false by saying he was "stepping down." Being President in name only, which is what it sounds like, is "stepping down." Being "fired" is admittedly a stretch, but in the heat of a discussion, not in her prepared remarks, and after she had already said "stepped down" with no apparent contradiction," not that big a one for someone whose job is advocacy. It's not unusual for someone in a sensitive and public position to be asked to "step aside" to minimize negative publicity. And, by the way, do we know that Maddow has been contradicted on these assertions after all this time?

There is also not a single thing false in the material quoted from what Maddow said about Egea and Crifo. You can rail on about her calling Baroni's testimony "cover up," but when you read his frequently non-responsive testimony, that is an obvious impression. If they are trying through their handwritten remarks to get him to testify in ways they know is not true, or even that they know might not be true, that raises serious questions. Any journalist digging into the story would be obligated to report the facts, and she has reported the simple fact that the previously unidentified handwriting is theirs.

He wasn't stepping aside from day-to-day operations. He was delegating some of those operations to an assistant. There is a difference. One implies removal from the job entirely. The other involves training a subordinate to assist with ongoing work. So, she did say something false. Go back and look at the wording of the news articles from which she took her info.

And yes, it is false to imply that Egea and Crifo were assisting in a coverup. Maddow's belief that Baroni's statement was cover up doesn't mean Baroni was covering up, or that anyone else believed him to be covering up. Accusing staff of covering up misconduct is a very serious thing. People can be fired for doing stuff like that. Maddow cannot casually make such accusations on the air, for their friends and relatives and work associates to hear, all without evidence of any guilt. It is morally wrong and a gross violation of journalistic ethics. It is a fact that the handwriting was theirs and that they admitted that it was their handwriting. It is not a fact that their editing was to polish a cover story, that the testimony itself constituted a cover up or that they understood that they were helping to cover up anything when they did that editing. None of that is fact.

I appreciate that Maddow wishes to tie Christie to this scandal. She needs real evidence, not assertions that hurt people who may be entirely innocent of anything beyond working for a public agency. Trampling workers to achieve political aims is very ugly. Maddow is a millionaire, but these people are not and they need their jobs and their reputations.

Maybe it was a delegation, maybe it wasn't. Neither you nor Bob knows whether it was stepping aside, stepping down or an effective firing, and what Bob technically covers but doesn't highlight for people like you who need it desperately is that the person Rachel invited onto the show to be interviewed by her, Ted Mann from the Wall Street Journal, immediately clarified what the union's position on it was, that it was not "stepping down" as she said. This is about as frail a reed for showing deception by Maddow as you can get. Stepping "aside" vs. stepping "down." Sheesh.

You don't know the meaning of either the word "false" or the word "accusation."

I can read what was reported. Maddow doesn't get to make up her own stories. These small discrepancies by Maddow add up to a pattern of deception. It doesn't matter that she was immediately contradicted. She is sloppy to the point of incompetence but you protect her because you like her politics. I prefer reliable sources.

Ah, but he is a blogger and not a national celebrity. I suppose that gives him an excuse if he imagines all sorts of "possibilities" yet to be disproven that have no relation to anything in a rational world.

We are all hypocrites in one way or another. It is a feeble attack. It does nothing to disprove the claims against Maddow.

Somerby is an unpaid blogger doing this out of concern. Maddow is being paid millions to get this stuff right. Whose is the sin that matters? Depends on whether you care about our public discourse.

I think Somerby gets most things right. I think Maddow gets some things right and others wrong. I think Maddow cares a lot less than Somerby about getting it right, as opposed to sticking it to her political enemies. Maddow deserves to be criticized. Somerby's is an important voice and does not deserve to be relentlessly stalked, as various trolls have been doing this past year. I do suspect it is coming from Maddow or some other powerful figure, since no one else would have the motive (or the time).

I don't know Somerby personally and I assume he would have a fine life if he were not presenting this blog every day. I do care about what running him off the internet would say about the opportunity for independent voices to criticize the powers that be in our society. You ought to care about that too, but you are no doubt too busy with your trolling.

"Maddow should have been sent for counseling long ago. She should have received journalistic counseling, and counseling for her soul. "

The irony.

"Her work on the Fort Lee matter has been astounding, horrendous. "

Pot KettleBeam Mote

Although his postings are ugly beyond all measure - there is still some shrewdness behind them - anybody notice how has so smoothly gone silent on the Virginia Governor (or was it Lt Gov) case after hurling feces at Maddow's coverage of it over several posts?

Does Bob even bother to wonder why two people on Chris Christie's staff would be helping Baroni prepare his testimony in the first place?

After all, this was supposed to be a Port Authority "traffic study" was it not?

If that story were ever true, and even if the new story were true that Kelly and Wildstein acted alone, what could Egea and Crifo possibly have known in November that would have contributed to Baroni's testimony?

This kind of preparation is routine. If you looked at the kind of changes they suggested, you would know how they helped edit the testimony. Maddow's suggestion that they were polishing the cover story, could apply to something like cosmetic changes to wording or corrected spelling.

I doubt there was a phrase in the margins saying "You would sound more innocent if you said 'I have no knowledge about this' instead of 'How should I know?'" If there were, you can be sure Maddow would have said so. She has stretched something thin to sound sinister. Doing that to Wildstein or even Baroni may be part of politics as usual. Doing it to staff isn't.

Maddow lists a bunch of people from the Governor's staff who assisted Baroni with his testimony before the legislature. Having staff review and edit testimony is routine. Who does it may not be. If you (and Maddow) are asserting that because Christie's staff were involved that makes Christie behind the whole thing and it makes the testimony itself false, a cover up, that is still wishful thinking.

I think it is natural that Christie, whether guilty or innocent, would be concerned about how Baroni would testify at a hearing intended to embarrass the governor by linking him to what Wildstein did, with political malice. The fact that he supplied help to Baroni in preparing to testify does not make what he said a cover up. People routinely get help with testimony before legislature bodies, whether they are being accused of something or not, and whether they are guilty of anything or not. Hillary Clinton had extensive help preparing her testimony before she appeared before Congress to answer questions about Benghazi. It doesn't mean she did anything wrong during that incident. It wouldn't mean that anyone who helped her was complicit in a cover up or themselves did anything wrong if they advised her during her preparations. It is the same when Christie assists Baroni because Christie will be affected by what Baroni says and wants to be careful not to say something stupid (ambiguous, misleading, fuzzy) that can be pounced upon by political opponents and blown up in a way that worsens the situation. Being careful is not the same as being guilty and covering up a crime.

Those who wish to drag down Christie may think this means he concocted a coverup. Maddow may even sincerely believe that, but she hasn't proven it. Accusations demand proof.

What bothers me is that she wasn't making accusations against Christie (in the excerpt Somerby presented) but was attacking staff, people who would perhaps be less likely to sue her or to be able to defend themselves from libel. Involving these noncombatants and being too cowardly to accuse Christie directly is craven. These staff do not have the luxury of refusing to do that editing. They are public employees with families who need their salary. It isn't right to attack Christie through them, especiallty without any evidence they did anything wrong. This just stinks.

"The fact that he supplied help to Baroni in preparing to testify does not make what he said a cover up."

No, the fact that there never was a traffic study makes it a cover up. This is getting preposterous. The Gibson-Dunn Report repeatedly states that there were "ulterior motives" behind the purported traffic study. That makes Baroni's testimony complete and utter bullshit, whether he knew it or not. That makes the "traffic study" a cover up.

"We now know whose handwriting that is. We know that is the handwriting of the governor’s current chief of staff, Regina Egea, and also a staffer named Nicole Crifo. She was also another senior staffer in the governor’s office at the time.

In today’s report from the governor’s lawyers, footnote 549 helpfully notes that those two staffers are the two senior Chris Christie staffers who admit that those are their handwritten comments on the testimony about the cover story. So they helped edit it. We now know that.

We also learned that the governor’s chief counsel, Charlie McKenna, also advised Bill Baroni on that cover-up testimony. And we also learned it was Governor Christie’s personal direction that Bill Baroni should give that testimony, that he should appear before the legislature and give that testimony which, again, was a fake cover story."

Everything she stated is absolutely true and accurate. So naturally Bob calls it "propaganda".

No one has disputed that these two people edited the testimony. They are disputing the significance attached to that. You and Maddow are slavering to tie Christie to the bridge scandal. You still don't have the link. All the assertions in the world don't add up to proof.

I'm sorry, but you're just full of shit. Maddow never said anything about the significance, other than the fact that it is significant that the identity of the people who edited the testimony is now established and both worked directly for Governor Christie. She never said they knew it was complete and utter bullshit. The traffic study is now undisputedly shown to be a cover story and it is perfectly appropriate that Maddow say so. The fact that ALL THE FUCKING PEOPLE who worked on this cover story were oblivious to the FACT that it was complete and utter bullshit does not negate the fact that is was in FACT complete and utter bullshit.

Just to be clear here, Bob is not saying that Baroni's testimony wasn't bullshit. No, Bob's point is that it hasn't been proven that Baroni, or Wong or Regina Egea, and Nicole Crifo or the governor’s chief counsel, Charlie McKenna knew it was bullshit. In fact, this was kind of like a Star Trek episode in which every friggin person involved with the Baroni testimony had no idea why they were doing it.

The taxpayers of NJ paid over a million dollars for this report and what did it say?

***************As the controversy grew, Wildstein and Kelly attempted to cover it up. Others in the Governor’s Office were being told by Wildstein and Baroni that this was a legitimate traffic study and an operational issue best left to the Port Authority to handle. *************

That is Christie's own lawyer's conclusion. COVER UP. It's not just what I believe.

I already did. Page 7. What, you don't like it because it says "cover it up" not "cover up"? "Ulterior motive" is another phrase that repeatedly turns up in the report in describing the "lane realignment". By the way, it's not widely known that the phrase "lane realignment" was a brilliant contribution by one of Masto's junior partners at the law firm, Jorge Orwell.

It said Wildstein and Kelly tried to cover it up, not Baroni. It says Wildstein briefed Baroni but it does not say Baroni knowingly participated in a cover up. You cannot say Baroni's testimony was bullshit on this basis. Wildstein or Kelly, but they haven't testified.

You find it impossible to believe that Baroni could have testified for hours not realizing that what he was saying was complete and utter bullshit. Yes, it is hard to believe, but that is what Bob is saying.

The fact that this was part of a cover up is an objective truth. Whether Baroni knew it was false is irrelevant to our discussion. I never said he did. What I said was it is perfectly appropriate for Maddow to characterize the traffic study ruse as a cover up. This is undisputed now. Catch up.

Ancient humans believed that the sun traveled in the sky around the earth. I'm sure they were quite sincere. That doesn't change the objective reality that it isn't true. Do you get it yet?

The Bob and Christie position is that all these people who participated in preparation of Baroni's testimony could have been innocently believing in the traffic study. That is because of the brilliance and persuasive skills of David Wildstein and Bridget Kelly. They alone were able to convince seasoned lawyers and even Baroni himself of the "traffic study" cover up. These were two of the most brilliant minds to ever work in government. Wildstein and Kelly, they are legends.

The Somerby position is that one must keep an open mind about things not yet proven. The Christie position is that he had nothing to do with whatever malfeasance occurred among the port authority staff. These are two very different positions.

Can they sue her for collateral damages? Clearly they have lost a whole lot.

I mean as Somerby notes, nothing has happened to Nunciato except he has had to retract thing he said to the press and let his VP take over some things on his job. And Egea lost her old job and got promoted to Christie's chief of staff as punishment for what Rachel said about her. Who knows what Crifo is up to. Poor Port Authority Policeman Chip Michaels is still being reviewed by the Port Authority and probably real housewive soccer moms of New Jersey worry about entrusting their children to him as a coach.

We haven't even finished with BOB's last opus on Maddow and he has reissued his greatest hits with a couple of new tracks on a live album.

Rest assured we will take our time. Given the mistake with which BOB starts this piece we think we are due the extra time.

"Mistake?" cry BOBfans, who were quick to chime in with what a great post this is. "How can you defend Maddow's mistakes!"

We won't. We will remind readers that BOB starts with this:

"SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 2014

Epilogue—Our very own Salem witch trial: Did you think that was all she did on last Thursday night’s program?

Yesterday, we listed some of Rachel Maddow’s errors on last Thursday night’s show, the program of March 27."

BOBfans, if this is Saturday, April 5, then last Thursday's show was on April 3, not March 27.

Minor error? Well, we will explore that possibility BOB style. We will give him the same courtesy he accorded to that lady with loose screws in big orange clown shoes. You know, the propagadist.

In the meantime we note this. We are not finished digesting BOB's last post. But in our one offering on its contents we demonstrated that in his effort to slam Maddow's very large error about the release of documents supporting the Mastro report, BOB made a big mistake himself. He put words in Maddow's mouth she did not speak. That error is not acknowledged in this post. Because BOB is very much the same as Rachel. Perhaps worse.

That is so true. Poor little "Legitimate Traffic Study" is dead. But his Bastard offspring "Not Disproven Legitimate Traffic Study" is alive and kicking his way into the "much needed" posts of B. Somerby, philosopher king of blog comedy and civilization salvation:

"Was the whole traffic study a hoax? On a journalistic basis, we don’t think that has been proven yet. (Maddow read a new email on Monday night which may create additional doubt, although of course she didn’t say so.)

Was the whole traffic study a hoax? We don’t think that has been proven. But if we assume the whole thing was a hoax, it remains true that Wildstein went through the motions of conducting a study both before and during the lane closings."

Like most people here I do not support Christie and would never have voted for him, but I have come to dislike Maddow, the trolls here, and partisans like Urban Legend and mm more. You do your cause no good by disrupting discussion here and generally create more sympathy for Somerby the more you attack him.

Interesting, isn't it, how Bob gloms onto the humongous "lie" Maddow told about Nunziato during a live debate on Bill Maher's show the day he "stepped aside/down", but he disappears what Baroni said about Nunziato.

In case we have forgotten, Baroni told the committee the Port Authority's "fairness study" on the proper amount of lanes to dedicate to Fort Lee access was the result of Nunziato mentioning it to Wildstein several times.

Nunziato has subsequently said that the last time Fort Lee access came up in any conversation with Wildstein occurred more than a year earlier.

Now of course, before he testified, Baroni could have checked this out with a simple phone call to Nunziato -- that is, if Baroni was interested in telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But then again, he also might have had a chat with Durando and Fulton as well about this "fairness study."

They might have been of more help in preparing truthful testimony than the governor's staff in Trenton.

Go back to BOB's Friday post. We posted three thorough examinations of BOB making things up or misleading in that post. You are welcome to disagree with any of them there or return here with refutations.

We'll add a new one. BOB also denies the existence of things he has just printed.

Presumably, that means that the northbound traffic jam ended 45 minutes early on I-95, due to the reduced interference from cars cutting in from Fort Lee. Absent the chaos in Fort Lee itself, this presumably would have been a desirable outcome.

Other emails to Bridget Kelly seem to suggest that people may have been monitoring traffic flow at different locations.

----

And after all that, the usual Somerby weasel words:

Wildstein at the site: At any rate, the intrepid David Wildstein was live and direct on the scene on Monday, September 9, emailing and/or texting reports about traffic flow.

On Sunday, September 8, he had emailed Robert Durando, a Port Authority official, saying this:

“Will be at bridge early Monday am to view new lane test.”

“So will I,” Durando replied, offering a set of notes about various preparations which were in place.

On Monday morning, the vigil began. At 8:43 AM on Tuesday, Wildstein was sending this message:

Presumably, that means that the northbound traffic jam ended 45 minutes early on I-95, due to the reduced interference from cars cutting in from Fort Lee. Absent the chaos in Fort Lee itself, this presumably would have been a desirable outcome.

Other emails to Bridget Kelly seem to suggest that people may have been monitoring traffic flow at different locations.

"Is it possible that this bungled effort was actually undertaken in good faith? Everything’s possible! That said, we don’t know if it was done in good faith. It may not have been."

Do you really not get Somerby's point -- one should not rush to judgment before the facts are in. He isn't saying it was a legitimate study -- he isn't saying it wasn't. He is saying we don't know enough to make that judgment yet. That is still true.

Some of you assume you know the truth. You don't need facts to draw conclusions. Good for you -- life must be a very certain thing when you can pretend to be omniscient. Others prefer to keep an open mind. Our justice system must keep an open mind and demands evidence. That means you must wait to pillory Christie and his associates until the jury is in.

BOBCar Willie (In real life Bob Zomerby) has a new album out. It contains covers of old favorites as well as some new material.

Let's howl along track by track .

* Oops! BOB rereleases the tale of Rachel blowing it by claiming, falsely, her man Mastro let her down by not releasing his documents. This shorter version is better than the original, because BOB left out the long verse where he claimed Rachel said the documents did not exist. BOB has yet to acknowledge he ever mistakenly sang this verse.

* Rappin Rachel Rants A cover of a long rap about relationships in which Rachel gets the lyrics right but the page number to the sheet music wrong. BOB tells you this creates a wrong impression on top of being just a mistake.

* The Relevance Song (Try to Explain) BOB leaves out the verse of Rachel asking why relationships are relevant to lane closures and instead harps out the chorus refrain.

It’s hard to look at work like this without wondering about BOB's artistic integrity. In our view, the blogging star offers work like this on a fairly regular basis. For a more complete review check our reviews of each tune in last Fridays post about last Thurday's show which was actually the Thursday before that show.

That brings us to a problem about the dates of this album. How on April 5 can last Thursday be March 27, as the liner notes in the album alleges? We told you earlier we would give this claim the BOB treatment.

Is this an innocent mistake? We don't know. But clearly Bob makes the mistake twice. This gives the impression BOB is covering new Rachel tunes rather than fairly old ones. She does have newer songs out he could have covered. It also masks the fact that BOB has had these tunes on tape for some time, which may explain why he did not correct some of the errors from his original recordings, We always know BOB quickly admits his own errors and responds to critics rather than leaving it to his many, many die hard fans.

And by telling his rubes that March 27 is April 3, Bob seems to be possibly definitely asserting that Maddow had a full week to read, digest and report on a report that was also issued "last Thursday."

After all, Bob warned us how "dangerous" it it possibly seems to report news on the day it happens.

This leads to such seemingly possible egregious errors (clearly on the level of seeming to possibly definitely confuse "down" with "aside") as pointing out that two Christie staff members helped "edit" Baroni's testimony.

And of course, following the law of Malala, we must continue to view the words and actions of hindquarter-covering politicians in only the best seemingly possible light.

Not one of those persons writing, editing, and even rehearsing this testimony could have possibly known at that time that what they were shoveling might help the tomatoes bloom and possibly bear fruit, but not the truth.

Also, never forget as we admonish the embellishers in the strongest possible terms who dare question the word of authority, that the "traffic problems in Fort Lee" had a very positive effect in clearing the normal northbound jam by a full "45 minutes" by blocking the "tens of millions of cars" that access from Fort Lee.

How do we know this for an absolute fact? Why, the "intrepid" Wildstein, right there to see it all unfold, has told us.

1. Her mistake claiming the background documents had not been released. On her next show she acknowledged and apologized for that error. That is more than Bob did when he subtly shifted his count of three times in 340 pages to three times in 100 pages, since, as I pointed out yesterday, saying “340 pages” is false when two-thirds of the report is either footnotes or discussion of the Dawn Zimmer matter. Bob does not acknowledge his error -- as far as I can recall, never has, never will.

2. Her error in saying the jilted lover story appeared for the third time on page 17. In fact, the third reference was on page 117. Here is her direct quote. “Is that why this is in a report three times and was also brought up gratuitously at the press conference?” The overall number reported is completely accurate.

3. Her saying there was no explanation for the significance of the jilted lover story. The “explanation” Bob thinks Maddow neglected is that the cooled relationship may have "affected" communications between Kelly and Stepien or "their conduct -- with as far as I can see zero attempt to explain how either of those affected events. That said, it is technically correct to say, I suppose, that Maddow misspoke when she said there was no "purported” explanation. The effect on communications could be asserted to be a “purported” explanation. That said, it was about as "purported" as you can get. It was also perfectly rational for Maddow to assert in a commentary that the story is presented several times, including at the press conference. I only found “over and over,” not “over and over and over,” but that said, even the latter is technically correct since it is repeated three times when including the press conference. The apparently tangential story being reported four times, including on page 3 of the executive summary and in the press conference, reasonably supports the nuance of intentional repetition for effect in “over and over and over.”

4. The term “slut-shaming” is arguably over the top. Maybe so, because the report literally uses it to suggest emotional dysfunction, not moral. That said, this is commentary and the viewer is perfectly capable of having his or her own opinion whether that is an appropriate term or not. Maddow is not the only one to look at it that way. By bringing it up as a “relationship,” the report is revealing the likelihood that Kelly had sex outside marriage; the drafter surely knows that there are still many people who do not approve of that.

5. Her having “convicted” Chip Michaels, Paul Nunziato, Regina Egea and Nichol Crifo. Sorry, but Bob seems to be clueless what the word “convicted” means. These are public figures who to some extent are connected with what appears to be a major breach of public service obligations. The connection may turn out to be tangential or innocent; that said, the propriety of two high-level members of Christie's own staff trying to shape the testimony of a Port Authority official is questionable to say the least. Moreover, these people have all been reported publicly elsewhere for the role being described in her MSNBC commentary. (For the horror of saying Nunziato was “fired” from his union presidency during a political argument on another show -- it appears to have generated amazingly little pushback -- or the difference between “stepping down” or “stepping aside,” see elsewhere in comments.”

6. Her referring to the Baroni testimony and the alleged traffic study as a “cover-up” when in Bob’s mind that has not been proved. As Bob the Philosopher knows, nothing is ever “proved.” There is only evidence. Most people following the story believe the evidence the cover story evidence overwhelming.

At minimum these are matters of interpretation. So who is over the top? Now we will see another example what octupling down means?

9:28 Are you really so naive as to believe anything in prime time on FOX or MSNBC is straight news? It is opinion.The people on these shows are reading scripts written by others for "infotainment." We can understand that Somerby hasn't made the leap of understanding necessary.But you should know better.

Anonymous @10:31, are you really so naive as to believe that prime time Fox and MSNBC are equally bad? Talk about false equivalency -- but then, Bob encourages that kind of thinking.

Forests and trees. Bob obsesses about a few bad tree moments (or makes them up) among those he categorizes as liberals, and then totalizes. Meanwhile, there are rather obvious, large forests he misses entirely. Like the utter fatuousness of the Mastro report, as just about everyone agrees. (Including NJ Republicans, according to Bergen Record reports.) With good reason. The report doesn't pass the most basic smell test. mch

Liberals cannot go to FOX and insist that they clean up their act. They perhaps can do so with MSNBC because MSNBC is a purportedly liberal channel. Media Matters does an excellent job of pointing out the misreporting that occurs regularly on FOX. It does not point out the misreporting on MSNBC.

Claiming that a show is infotainment instead of news does not let anyone off the hook. News can be entertaining and still accurate. There is no reason why adding "tainment" to the end of info need change the information content into propagandistic distortion.

BOBcar promised new material about the album based on Rachel folk fables wrongly accusing the innocent. A couple of these soulful ballads aiming to restore the besmirched names of the haplessly wounded souls have actuall been release before. In each, BOB leaves out verses that help the listener understand the true sad tales involved.

The Ballad of Lt. Chip

This poor Port Authority policeman just happened to find out before any other cops were notified of the doings planned for that fateful Bad Day at Toll Rock. He just happended to show up early one morning to chauffer the bad guy, David "Unreliable" Wildstein, around the scene of the study/crime. He just happened to communicate traffic diversion suggestions in writing to the local police, even though "Unreliable" had earlier instructed Lt. Chip's bosses on the bridge not to notify such local laws, and instead leave that task to him, "Unreliable, to take care of. Bobcar skips these famous opening verses and gets right to telling you the terrible verses where Rachel stretches what a newspaper says about Lt. Chip's suggestion and what the local Police Chief said in response to Lt. Chip's suggestion. Bob stops the song there. New verses tell us the Police Chief did in fact say the actions taken by police officers ranking below Lt. Chip did make traffic problems worse. They tell us some police officers ranking below Lt. Chip told complaining motorists to call city hall or the mayor with their complaints. Finally they tell us the cowardly executive director of the Port Authority did not join Bobcar's courageous call and ask for Rachel to be fired. Instead he asked the Inspector General of the Port Authority to investigate Lt. Chip and others with the Port Authority Police. We guess BOBcar left out these verses because the words don't go to his meme.

The Lonesome Firing/Demotion/Retraction of Paulie Nunziato

A truly sad song about a working man, union leader Paul Nunziato, who headed the only police union with guts enough to endorse Chris Christie because his was the only police union whose pensions Christie did not lie about preserving and then subsequently cut.

Rachel falsely convicted Nunziato according to BOBcar's song. She falsely convicted him by erroneously saying he had been fired on a comedy show. BOBcar knows Paulie wasn't fired because he wrote a letter saying he wasn't. He was just turning over unspecified day to day duties to an underling. We know Paulie always can be believed because right after Bill Baroni says the lane changes in Ft. Lee were all Paulie's idea, Paulie stepped right up and took credit for the idea.Bobcar leaves out the letter Paulie's lawyer wrote after Baroni and Wildstein resigned and caca was flying in the fan. In that letter Paulie not only denies the closings were his idea, he says Paulie told Bill Baroni that the closings were not his idea before Baroni testified to that effect. "The Lonesome Whatever of Paulie Nunziato" is a sad, sad song. Rachel did this fine man wrong. Were it not for Rachel the U.S. Attorney would probably have simply looked the other way.

Ballad of the Real Governor's Aides of New Jersey

We are sure this tune is up to the usual strong standards of Bobcar. We'll let you know once we listen. We have to admit the liner notes recounting how wicked Rachel was by not telling us all the really fine steps "Unreliable" took to do a traffic study had us sauced all day and we didn't get around to the convictions of these poor ladies, one of who was so damaged she lost her job. Of course she was given another one as Chris Christie's chief of staff.

Is hyperbole a lie? Is it exageration? Stretching the truth? Misleading?

Propaganda?

Does it involve using inflammatory language in a string of descriptions designed to cast someone in an unfavorable light?

Lets string some words together.

witch trial...ranted...extended rant...ranted...slippery and dishonest...hanging judge...charge and convict...falsely convicted...that hanging occurred...Maddow mugged...conducted her witch trials...skillful Torquemada...Torquemada...her very long list of the guilty of the earth...work so hard, or so dishonestly, to convict so many people of so many unproven crimes...spread her vitals around.